627
Views
25
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Use your imagination: what UK universities want you to think of them

&

References

  • Bélanger, C. H., Bali, S., & Longden, B. (2014). How Canadian universities use social media to brand themselves. Tertiary Education and Management, 20, 14–29.
  • Brown, R. (2010). Higher education and the market. London: Routledge: Taylor & Francis.
  • Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: An interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 99–106.
  • Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building in UK universities? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 23–32.
  • Cliff, J. E., Langton, N., & Aldrich, H. E. (2005). Walking the talk? Gendered rhetoric vs. action in small firms. Organization Studies, 26, 63–91.
  • Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147–166.
  • Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
  • Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63–81.
  • Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403.
  • Hartley, M., & Morphew, C. C. (2008). What’s being sold and to what end? A content analysis of college viewbooks. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 671–691.
  • Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Management, 31, 356–365.
  • Huisman, J., & Mampaey, J. (2016). The style it takes: How do UK universities communicate their identity through welcome addresses? Higher Education Research and Development, 35, 502–515.
  • Huisman, J., Norgård, J. N., Rasmussen, J. G., & Stensaker, B. (2002). ‘Alternative’ universities revisited: A study of the distinctiveness of universities established in the spirit of 1968. Tertiary Education and Management, 8, 315–332.
  • Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 276–282.
  • James, H., & Huisman, J. (2009). Mission statements in Wales: the impact of markets and policy on congruence between institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31, 23–35.
  • Kotler, P., & Fox, K. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61, 812–836.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Mampaey, J., & Huisman, J. (2016). Branding of UK higher education institutions. An integrated perspective on the content and style of welcome addresses. Recherches Sociologiques et anthropologiques, 43, 133–148.
  • Meyer, J., Ramirez, F., Frank, D., & Schofer, E. (2005). Higher education as an institution. In P. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts (pp. 187–221). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
  • Neves, J., & Hillman, N. (2017). Student academic experience survey. York: Higher Education Academy and Higher Education Policy Institute.
  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179.
  • Opoku, R. A., Hultman, M., & Saheli-Sangari, E. (2008). Positioning in market space: The evaluation of Swedish universities’ online brand personalities. Journal of Marketing in Higher Education, 18, 124–144.
  • Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Quirke, L. (2013). Rogue resistance: Sidestepping isomorphic pressures in a patchy institutional field. Organization Studies, 34, 1675–1699.
  • Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (Eds.). (2014). Analyzing media messages. Using quantitative content analysis in research (3rd ed.). New York & London: Routledge Taylor & Francis.
  • Sauntson, H., & Morrish, L. (2010). Vision, values and international excellence: The products that university mission statements sell to students. In M. Molesworth, E. Nixon, & R. Scullion (Eds.), The marketisation of UK higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 73–85). London: Routledge.
  • Schofield, C., Cotton, D., Gresty, K., Kneale, P., & Winter, J. (2013). Higher education provision in a crowded marketplace. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35, 193–205.
  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Seeber, M., Barberio, V., Huisman, J., & Mampaey, J. (Forthcoming). Factors affecting the content of universities’ mission statements. An analysis of the United Kingdom higher education system. Studies in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1349743
  • Stensaker, B., & Norgård, J. N. (2001). Innovation and isomorphism: A case-study of university identity struggle 1969–1999. Higher Education, 42, 473–492.
  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.